Also sprach the market

Financial journalists must have telepathic powers. Otherwise, you'd never see articles like this:

Obama spending plan worries US markets

While a large fraction of the economics profession has jumped on-board the fiscal stimulus bandwagon, apparently some investors are less sanguine:

Sinking bond prices are "a reflection of the massive stimulus plan in effect and the likelihood that there is more coming down the road, and the concerns how we will pay for all of this," Kim Rupert, fixed income analyst at Action Economics, told CNN Money.

So there we go. Fiscal stimulus will be bad for the economy, says the market. Or so I thought, until I read this:

Stocks tumble on fresh worries about banks

According to this article:

"At this stage, markets in general and bank investors specifically are really looking to government as the way out," said Jack Ablin, chief investment officer at Harris Private Bank. "Certainly, of just about all of inaugurations that I can recall today's event probably has the not only the symbolic importance but really tangible importance to the stock market." (emphasis added)

So who's right? Financial markets are not monolithic entities, but the product of millions of individual decisions. They are affected by many factors and it's easy (but usually wrong) to construct an ex-post explanation of the day's events.

It seems unlikely that the stimulus plan had much to do with today's events in the market. Obama was sworn in today, but we've known for weeks that fiscal stimulus is coming fast. And it seems equally unlikely that financial markets are suddenly spooked by government debt, particularly with near-zero interest rates allowing the Treasury to borrow virtually for free.

If the market is up tomorrow, what will the headline be?

Christmas changes everything

The Christmas holiday season - for JC followers and non-JC followers alike - can be counted on to provide an atmosphere of piped-in upbeat music, crowded stores filled with plastic sock-sized trinkets, decadent character-shaped chocolate and mint candy and enough red and green bunting to drown a warehouse full of elves.

I normally revel in all of this - I hum to the tunes, smile at the worn-out sales clerks and eat more than my share of holiday-themed treats. But this morning, when my regular NPR news coverage was disrupted for a segment that could be called "What are sugar plums?" in which experts spoke on the fruity specialty mentioned in holiday poem "Twas the night before Christmas" it gave me pause. It wasn't newsy, it wasn't particularly unique, it was just done in the "spirit of Christmas."

Some things - Rockefeller Center can-cans, neighborhood caroling, family feasts, food bank donations - are appropriately done in the Christmas spirit. News coverage is not on this list. Loosening content standards because people expect only light, off-beat news at holiday times belittles readers/listeners and reporters alike.

The icing on the fruitcake for me was CNN's approach to the Somalian pirates situation. In a peice published Christmas Eve, the outlet expands on a 'Holidays with Pirates' theme. People are suffering in the cold waters at gunpoint and the holiday themed approach to the story sounds more like a direct-to-DVD children's action film. Shame on CNN for attempting a light-hearted spin on real news - leave this approach to comedians and let the reader choose whether they can handle real news over the holiday.

If it scares it leads?

A recent CNN piece on gun sales rising since Obama's presidency sent a chill down my peace-loving spine. It also left me wondering where journalistic responsibility lies. It takes CNN 5 paragraphs of this article to get to the point that it is legislation fears that are motivating the surge --- due to the campy anecdotal lede assassination violence is all but directly alluded to. A slow story like that draws away from any substantive trend data (one case study does not a trend make). One has to question the motives of any copy editor that gave the piece a headline that doesn't mention policy.

In fact, many news outlets have chosen to cover assassination possibilities long before inauguration day, one of the more outrageous examples being the Metro this week. Following an election with the highest voter turnout and healthiest margin of support for the victor in the last 8 years, the most appropriate lede is the possibility of assassination. Can it be that the US is so focused on the racial issue that this is the only angle editors can assign? Bush's approval ratings are at an all-time low but the subject of riot or violence against him rarely came up during the past eight years.

Sadly, I believe speculative articles that prey on fear for readership detract from any real value-add potential that coverage of historic events have. The fourth estate often comes under criticism for being insensitive and manipulative of emotion and events. As subscription rates drop, print circulation is cut, editorial layoffs ensue and the cost of online advertising remains low --- it's a good time for the industry to look at it's coverage philosophy.

Yes, journalism needs to ask the difficult questions. But those difficult questions aren't always the most shocking or driven at sparking controversy. Now that we have a biracial president it would be nice if for once everything wasn't a black and white issue in print. In fact often the tough questions are the thoughtful, well-researched ones, that are unique to a particular outlet and not strewn across the top hits on Yahoo or Google news. I challenge 2009 journalists to take the unique position of not mongering only fear and doubt in these challenging times but instead providing relevant news and information.